..., hola saihestuz edozein eztabaida arten bere "ustezko superteoria" eta "sasiteoria bat"

Herenegungo sarreran, Givón (1979:1) mintzo zén gain "the rhythmic rise an fall of pseudotheories" an referentzia ki gramatika transformazional generatiboa ti Chomsky. Horrek gogoratu digu ze EHUko akaso hizkuntzalari chomskyar nabariena, Itziar Laka, justuki mintzo zén gain sasiteoria noiz referitzen zen ki gure lana, hola saihestuz edozein eztabaida zientifiko. Horretaz, gogora daigun ondorengo sarrera: 

• ..., nola egiten dutén an republika bananerorik eredugarrienak
  

Oso argigarria da konprobatzea nóla hizkuntzalari hori bera zein ari den sistematikoki erabiltzén argumentazio ustelak, sasiargumentazioak gabé ibilbiderik, eginak soilik gana konsumo propioa, justuki hizkuntzalari horrexek berak eztú izanen arazo minimoena ere saiátzeko botatzen ti eszenario zientifikoa edozein planteamendu ze-dún dudatan jartzén bere teoria, eta berarekin, bere posizio zientifiko eta soziala an esparru linguistikoa, zein den ia maximoa eskerki teoria galgarri hori. 

Eta hala eginen du gabé batere debaterik, gratuitoki, soilik erabiliz bere posizio prepotentea an establishment zientifiko eta soziala, nola egiten dutén an republika bananerorik eredugarrienak (hola, gutxienik, luzátuz area horien azpigarapena). Ikus an "Eztabaida zientifikotik at? Hori da bide antizientifikoa":

Luistxo Fernandez-ek aipatzen du hurrengo esaldia ganik Itziar Laka (ikus: "Burmuina aztertuz ikasi ditugun euskararen 4 sekretu", publikatua an "Sustatu", 2015-07-20):

"Eztabaida zientifikotik at utzi behar ditugu sasi-teoria horiek", esan zuen Lakak. Jomugan, Jesus Rubiok sutsuki defenditu du euskararen erreforma dago, dudarik gabe; ez dakit horrenbeste Joxe Aranzabalek eta beste batzuek defenditu duten euskara ez-esklerotikoa egiteko bideak (Irakur Sustatuko hau). (Itziar Laka)

Baina, gauza (arazoa) da ze Lakak dioen sasiteoria hori báda fundamentatua an logika komunikatibo garden eta potentea, eta báda sostengatua kin evidentziak ti esparru, esango nuké, guztiak (zein dirén bereziki argiak an literatura buruz euskara). Justuki alderantziz-ze bere teoria ahula, zein ezkutatzen da atzén kortinak e autoritatea. Bai, oso argigarria da.

Bai, hola saihestuz edozein eztabaida arten bere "ustezko superteoria" eta "sasiteoria bat".

Sintaxiari buruz, existitzen dira bi hurbilketa linguistiko nagusi: bata da hurbilketa formala (zeinen referentzia nagusia den Chomsky), eta bestea da hurbilketa funtzionala (non akaso Givón aipatu beharko genuke)

Atzoko sarreraren harira, azpimarratu nahi genuke ze Talmy Givón da figura zentral bat an linguistika funtzionala. Antzera nola Chomsky den linguistika formalaren figura zentrala, akaso Givón-i eman behar genioke paper hori respektu hizkuntzalaritza funtzionala. Justuki puntu horretaz mintzo ginen an ondorengo sarrera, zeinen edukia rekuperatzen dugun jarraian:

• XK2: Irresponsabilitate handia

Sintaxiari buruz, existitzen dira bi hurbilketa linguistiko nagusi: bata da hurbilketa formala (zeinen referentzia nagusia den Chomsky), eta bestea da hurbilketa funtzionala (non akaso Givón aipatu beharko genuke).

Hurbilketa formalak ez ditu azaltzen logikoki bere printzipioak: printzipio horiek hor daude (biologikoak dira), eta parametroak funtsean arbitrarioki banatuta egonen lirateke:

Another issue involves explanation: there has been little interest in even asking the "why" question in formal grammar and principles of ordering have been stipulated in an explanatory vacuum . [John A. Hawkins (funtzionalista)]

Korronte funtzionalistak, berriz, jartzen du bere analisiaren zentroan honako galdera hau:

fundamental question: Why is language structure the way it is? [Martin Haspelmath (funtzionalista)]

Ez dugu egin behar oso buruketa sakona afin konturatu ezen hurbilketa funtzionala da zientifikoki osoagoa ezi hurbilketa formal hutsa (gauza da ze hurbilketa funtzionalak sistematikoki galdetzen du: "Zergatik?"). Haspelmath doa haruntzago noiz dioen:

Are functional explanations compatible with generative analyses?

In principle, yes, but often generative analyses are made redundant by functional explanations, so ignoring functional explanations is irresponsible. [Martin Haspelmath (funtzionalista)]

Guztiz ados: da irresponsabilitate handia. Datuak ari dira exijitzen azalpen (serio) bat.

Bistan dirá oinarrizko diferentziak arten bi hurbilketa horiek.

Givón (1979): "... the synchronic characteristics of syntactic structures cannot be understood without some reference to the diachronic processes which gave them rise."

Atzoko sarreran jartzen genuen gure atentzioa gain dimensio diakronikoa e datu enpirikoak gain hitz-ordena, zein ezinbestez konsideratu beharko da baldin ulertu nahi badugu datu horien sakontasun eta esangura osoa. Zentzu horretan mintzo zén Givón (an bere "On understanding grammar", 1979) bidéz hitz hauek:

... the synchronic characteristics of syntactic structures cannot be understood without some reference to the diachronic processes which gave them rise. [Givón, 1979:235]

Aipu hori jasotzen genuen barné beste aipu bat ganik Hoeks (2016), non  azken autore horrek berriro azpimarratzen zuén ber ideia: a inportantzia e dimensio diakronikoa noiz aztertzen evidentzia enpirikoa gain hitz-ordenak. Beherago agertzen da Hoeks-en aipu osoa, barné gure sarrera titúlatzen:

• Hoeks (2016): "From the fact that the change into SOV has (almost) never occurred in recent history (Givón, 1979; Newmeyer, 2000), it might be claimed that ..."

zeinen eduki osoa gogratu nahi dugu:

Hoeks (2016) dú jotzen justuki an gakoa: Ez dira soilik azaldu behar nóla banatzen diren gaur egungo maiztasunak arten hitz-ordenak (hori ere, esan gabe doa, aztertu behar da), baizik-ere maiztasun diakronikoak, esan nahi baita, horiek ze dúten erakusten zéin izan diren joera evolutibo nagusiak arten hitz-ordenak eta zéin baldintzetan gertatu dirén mugimendu horiek. Hori informazio klavea da an afera hau, eta ezinbestez eman behar zaio tratamendu egokia, zein baita ondo zentrala:

Bai, ...

From the fact that the change into SOV has (almost) never occurred in recent history (Givón, 1979; Newmeyer, 2000), it might be claimed that there exists no preference for SOV word orders. [Hoeks, 2016]

Bai, orobat behar da ikuspegi dinamikoa, evolutiboa, diakronikoa, zein den Hoeks-en (2016) lanaren bizkarrezurra.

Bai, ezinbestez.

Hoeks (2016): "From the fact that the change into SOV has (almost) never occurred in recent history (Givón, 1979; Newmeyer, 2000), it might be claimed that ..."

Hoeks (2016) dú jotzen justuki an gakoa: Ez dira soilik azaldu behar nóla banatzen diren gaur egungo maiztasunak arten hitz-ordenak (hori ere, esan gabe doa, aztertu behar da), baizik-ere maiztasun diakronikoak, esan nahi baita, horiek ze dúten erakusten zéin izan diren joera evolutibo nagusiak arten hitz-ordenak eta zéin baldintzetan gertatu dirén mugimendu horiek. Hori informazio klavea da an afera hau, eta ezinbestez eman behar zaio tratamendu egokia, zein baita ondo zentrala:

Bai, ...

From the fact that the change into SOV has (almost) never occurred in recent history (Givón, 1979; Newmeyer, 2000), it might be claimed that there exists no preference for SOV word orders. [Hoeks, 2016]

Bai, orobat behar da ikuspegi dinamikoa, evolutiboa, diakronikoa, zein den Hoeks-en (2016) lanaren bizkarrezurra. [⇶]

Newmeyer (1998): 'I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV.'

Atzoko sarreran ikusten genuen idatzi bat non Bingfu Lu (1998) zíon erantuzten ki mezu bat ga (ganik, ganika, ganikan) Newmwyer hizkuntzalaria (1998), nork, atzo ikusten genuenez, zioén hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Ikus daigun orain Newmeyer-en idatzi osoa (1998):

Matthew Dryer has shown that, once we correct for areal and genetic bias, the 'preference' for OV order is greater than that for VO order in the world's languages. But interestingly, I have seen it claimed in a variety of places that attested (or uncontroversially reconstructed) word order changes from OV to VO are far more common than those from VO to OV. 

My first question is how widely accepted is such a claim among historical linguists and typologists? Is there much support for such an idea and its implication of an overall general 'drift' from OV to VO? 

If this claim seems well motivated, the conjunction of the 'preference' for OV and the 'drift' to VO is very curious, no? One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of directions (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines. 

Gauza da ze, izánik interesgarriak gaur egungo maiztasun estatikoak buruz hitz-ordenak, askoz interesgarriagoak dirá datu dinamikoak buruz nóndik, norántza eta zéin baldintzetan joan diren evoluzionatzen sintaxiak zehar historia (ez soilik evoluzioak, baizik-ere evoluzio horien baldintza diferenteak). Izan ere, maiztasun estatikoak soilik dira puntu bat, azken puntua, azken argazkia atérea ki fluxu evolutibo bat zeintaz bádugun informazio dinamiko kualitatiboa, ondo relevantea, zein, jakina, ez genuken ahaztu behar an gure analisiak. [⇶]

...as the needs of language users become increasingly complex, other pressures (…) begin to favor a shift to SVO...

Galdetzen du Mendik an aurreko sarrera:

Galdera funtsezko batzuk:

- NOIZ, ZERGATIK eta NOLA sortzen dira PREPOSIZIOAK?

- Zer zegoen lehen, POSPOSIZIOA ala PREPOSIZIOA?

Nire ustez, gai hauek dira askoz garrantzitsuagoak ezen esaterako, data behar bezala idatzi edo Nor-Nori erabili ez dakit ze aditzetan.

Hara, gogora dezagun zér zioen Givon-ek (akaso hizkuntzalari funtzionalistarik famatuena) gain evoluzioa on hitz-ordena (2005):

In general, SOV is the oldest attested word-order in human language. Most natural (non-contact induced) drift is, as far as I know, always away from SOV, not toward it (Givon 1979; Ruhlen & Gell-Man, forthcoming). [Givon, 2005]

Halarik ere, gaur egun munduko hizkuntzen erdiak (gutxi gorabehera) pasatu dirá ki VO ordena, eta prozesuak jarraitzen du, zeren SVO ordena dá, baldintza orokorretan, askoz funtzionalagoa ezen OV.

Izan ere, behar linguistikoak igo ahala, gerota egokiagoa da ez soilik SVO ordena, baizik ere beste estruktura eta baliabide burulehen guztiak (elkarrekin osagarriak eta sinergikoak baitira), zeinen artean diran aurkitzen preposizioak. Ikus hurrengo aipua on Tily ("The role of processing complexity in word order variation and change", 2010), non dan aipatzen Goldin-Meadow eta beste:

Goldin-Meadow and colleagues suggest that agent-patient-action may represent a “cognitively basic” order for representing events, linguistically or non-linguistically. They argue that SOV is therefore the likely candidate for the basic order of some earlier form of all languages, but that as the needs of language users become increasingly complex, other pressures (…) begin to favor a shift to SVO. (Tily 2010:94)

Hortaz, NOIZ? Baldin hizkuntza batek topatzen baditú preposiziogai egokiak azpi baldintza egokiak, prozesua erlatiboki erraza izan liteke. Baina orokorrean prozesua ez da zértan izan erraza, halatan non ez da batere txikia kopurua on hizkuntzak non oraindik ez dan sortu ia batere baliabide prepositiborik (japoniera SOV postpositibo zurruna, kasu).

ZERGATIK? Azken buruan, zeren baliabide burulehenekin dá irabazten esanguratsuki an botere rekursibo funtzionala, dá irabazten esanguratsuki an zehaztasun erosoa...

NOLA? Baldintza egokietan, hizkuntzak aski espontaneoki sortu (edo mailegatu) ohi dituzté euren preposizioak, abiatuz ti adverbioak edo beste elementu lexikoak; baina baldintzak (estrukturalak eta bestelakoak, intra eta extralinguistikoak) ez dira zértan izan egokiak, eta prozesua ez da zértan izan erraza. Euskararen kasuan ez da erraza, eta beharko litzake jarrera proaktiboa ti instituzio eta autoritate linguistikoak. [187] [⇶]

XK5: Teoria gardena eta ebidentzia enpiriko sendoa bat-eginik

Erantzunez a Xabier Kintana (ikus XK1, XK2, XK3 hau, XK4, eta hau). 

1998an David Gil hizkuntzalariak (erantzunez a bere kolega Bingfu Lu) zúen planteatzen honako galdera hau (ikus XK4):

First a question: Is it actually the case that there's more OV>VO than VO>OV among ATTESTED changes, or only amongst RECONSTRUCTED changes.

Eta Gil-ek berak zioskun zér deduzitu beharko genukeen baldin erantzuna balitz baiezko biribila (ikus Gil-en mezu osoa hemen):

... , if the former, then I see no way to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a fascinating window into linguistic evolution, with OV languages being evolutionarily prior to VO languages with respect to word order typology.

(An inevitable disclaimer. To say that, say, OV Japanese is evolutionarily prior to, say, VO English with respect to word order typology is not to rule out the possibility that, say, OV Japanese might be more advanced evolutionarily than VO English with respect to other linguistic properties not correlated with word order. And needless to say, such claims say nothing about extra-linguistic matters.)

Gil-ek, esan bezala, zúen planteatzen hori-galdera an 1998. Eta 2005ean Tom Givón hizkuntzalariak (zein baita figura zentral bat an hizkuntzalaritza funtzionala) zioen (ikus Givón-en mezu osoa hemen):

1. Synchronic morphology is most often the best guide for reconstructing older syntax. There is not a single shred of evidence in Japanese morphology indicating anything but SOV syntax (see Givon 1971, 1979, 1983 ed., 2001, inter alia).

2. In general, SOV is the oldest attested word-order in human language. Most natural (non-contact induced) drift is, as far as I know, always away from SOV, not toward it (Givon 1979; Ruhlen & Gell-Man, forthcoming).

Honek du erakusten haruntzago ti edozein duda razonable ezen, afera honetan, bat datoz teoria gardena eta ebidentzia enpiriko sendoa. Hau da, ... I see no way to avoid the conclusion that... [107] [⇶]

XK2: Irresponsabilitate handia

Erantzunez a Xabier Kintana (ikus XK1).

Sintaxiari buruz, existitzen dira bi hurbilketa linguistiko nagusi: bata da hurbilketa formala (zeinen referentzia nagusia den Chomsky), eta bestea da hurbilketa funtzionala (non akaso Givón aipatu beharko genuke).

Hurbilketa formalak ez ditu azaltzen logikoki bere printzipioak: printzipio horiek hor daude (biologikoak dira), eta parametroak funtsean arbitrarioki banatuta egonen lirateke:

Another issue involves explanation: there has been little interest in even asking the "why" question in formal grammar and principles of ordering have been stipulated in an explanatory vacuum . [John A. Hawkins (funtzionalista)]

Korronte funtzionalistak, berriz, jartzen du bere analisiaren zentroan honako galdera hau:

fundamental question: Why is language structure the way it is? [Martin Haspelmath (funtzionalista)]

Ez dugu egin behar oso buruketa sakona afin konturatu ezen hurbilketa funtzionala da zientifikoki osoagoa ezi hurbilketa formal hutsa (gauza da ze hurbilketa funtzionalak sistematikoki galdetzen du: "Zergatik?"). Haspelmath doa haruntzago noiz dioen:

Are functional explanations compatible with generative analyses?

In principle, yes, but often generative analyses are made redundant by functional explanations, so ignoring functional explanations is irresponsible. [Martin Haspelmath (funtzionalista)]

Guztiz ados: da irresponsabilitate handia. Datuak ari dira exijitzen azalpen (serio) bat. [102] [⇶]

... the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease (Bingfu Lu)

Frederick Newmeyer-ek ("one of the first generativists to call attention to the ideas of the functionalist wing of the field") zioen honako hau an 1998:

One might even conclude that the OV preference is a remnant of a 'proto-world' OV (caused by what?), which functional forces (but what functional forces?) are skewing gradually to VO. And, indeed, linguists coming from a variety of direction (Venneman, Givon, Bichakjian, and others) have concluded something very much along those lines.

Bingfu Lu hizkuntzalariak erantzun zion honela:

I venture to posting my tentative opinions below: 

1.
There may be several reasons for proto-languages to tend be OV rather than VO. For instance, OV and SV are harmonious. Both O and S are dependents of the head V. Languages prefer OV over VO just like they prefer SV over VS.

2.
Proto-languages are expected to be simple in terms of nominal expressions. However, along with the developing of NP internal structure and the extension of the size of NP, the pressure to move large NP to the end of sentence increases too. Between S and O, O is more likely to be heavy. That is why O, but not S, tend to postpone.

Matthew Dryer 1980's "The Positional Tendencies of Sentential Noun Phrases in Universal Grammar." (Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 12-195) argues that postposing of sentential NPs is overall preferred over preposing. Languages only resort to preposing when postposing would violate the rigid V-final order.

3.
In addition, a heavy O is normally a piece of new information. New information tends to appear later in the sentence. Therefore, everything else being equal, a heavy O tends postpone rather than prepose.

4.
On the other hand, if a language starts with SVO order, there seems no obvious motivation to drift to SOV, unless O is a pronominal or clitic.

In short, the drift from OV to VO is motivated by the processing ease.

Egitan, ezin ninteke egon adosago. [84] [⇶]

Japoniera: korronte kritikoa

Tom Givon da autoritate bat an hizkuntzalaritza funtzionala:

Functional linguistics also began to develop as a field in the 1970s, in the work of linguists such as Joan Bybee, Bernard Comrie, John Haiman, Paul Hopper, Sandra Thompson, and Tom Givon. The principal focus of functional linguistics is on explanatory principles that derive from language as a communicative system,...

Eta Tom Givon-ek dio (erantzunez tu galdera oso interesgarri bat hon Bittor Hidalgo hizkuntzalari eta EHUko irakaslea):

Dear Bittor,

One could make a few methodological suggestions about how to approach the problem(s) you raised:

1. Synchronic morphology is most often the best guide for reconstructing older syntax. There is not a single shred of evidence in Japanese morphology indicating anything but SOV syntax (see Givon 1971, 1979, 1983 ed., 2001, inter alia).

2. In general, SOV is the oldest attested word-order in human language. Most natural (non-contact induced) drift is, as far as I know, always away from SOV, not toward it (Givon 1979; Ruhlen & Gell-Man, forthcoming).

3. All natural languages with 'rigid' word-order have much freer word-order in actual natural (oral) communication, with much pragmatically-determined variation. Put another way, rigid WO is relative, never absolute.

These are all old hats, by the way, so much so that I feel somewhat embarrassed to re-state them (again...).

Best regards, TG

Beraz, hor ikusten dugu nolako inportantea den bereiztea zein baldintzatan gertatu diren hizkuntza-aldaketak (jakina, ahal den neurrian).

Hemen doa galdera hon Bittor Hidalgo (zeini erantzun dio Givón-ek):

It is everywhere rigidly claimed that Japanese is (always) a rigid verb final language. But has always been so? I have no reference about Japanese historical and dialectal word order development and variation, and I would thank any. My concern would be to know if Japanese has always and everywhere been so a rigid-verb-final language? Or on the contrary, as it is the case of other characteristics (cf. Gottlieb, 2005), verb rigid finality is also a claime, more or less born or rigidly developed at the last century, with the general standardization process of Japanese? Beside, I would definitely want to know if even current Japanese spontaneous (oral) word order is so rigidly verb final as claimed? Because between some other, at least P.M. Clancy (1982) or Matsumoto (2003) claim that Japanese spoken word order is not so rigid (as Matsumoto says, 4: Japanese spoken discourse consists not only of basic canonical SOV word order constructions involving pre-predicate elements, but also of marked word order constructions involving post-predicate elements). And Shibamoto (1985, ap. Gottlieb 2005, 14) «found that women often reverse the normal word order, putting the subject after the predicate», where predicate seems to include the verb). Then, what is Japanese rigid verb final condition, a description or a desideratum?

And if Japanese is so a rigid verb final language how can the current Japanese hearer or listener manage to easily understand verb final long (very long) sentences, as those with verbs of thinking or saying? Maybe, it is necessary for them to start reading (not listening, of course, they can not) by the end to understand sentences, as it is usually recommended for foreigners («Sometimes it is good to start from the end of the sentence and work your way to the beginning. In that way you will learn the most important info first (the verb) and move to what is made to happen and who does it.»). Because cognitive processement constrictions seem to be more or less similar for humankind, ... And by the same way, how does children language work? Is it also so rigid verb final always?

Bittor Hidalgo-k bilatu du ebidentziarik respektu nola aldatu den Japonieraren hitz-ordena, baina ez du aurkitu (ikus):

But I didn't find either any reference about word order historical variation. Maybe because it is absolutely true as G.B. Sansom states (An Historical Grammar of Japanese 1928 [1995], 339) "word order can be said to have remained unchanged -c'est à dire, has been verb-final- since the Nara period -710-784 a.D., I think-"?.

"Nara period" hori da garai zaharrena zeinetan den existitzen dokumentazioa: VIII mendea.

Bestalde, ondorengoa irakurri ahal dugu an "The World's major languages":

"Another persistent mith is that Japanese, compared to Western languages, notably French, is illogical and/or vague. This belief, remarkable as it may be, is most conspicuously professed by certain Japanese intelectuals well versed in European languages and philosophy. Their conviction is undoubtedly a reflection of the inferiority complex of the part of Japanese intellectuals toward Western civilisation. After all, Japan's modernisation effort started only after the Meiji Restoration (1867). Prior to this, Japan had maintained a feudalistic society and a cloosed-door policy to the rest of the world for nearly 250 years." [Masayoshi Shibatani, 855. or.]

¿Esplikazioa al da ha inferiority complex of the part of Japanese intellectuals? Oso pobrea iruditzen zait esplikazio hori. Edonola ere, Japonian existitzen da korronte kritiko bat: zinez, oso interesgarria. [73] [⇶]